He should’ve used a different term cause even F-18A supercruises.
1 Like
So again will we see one of these sources from you or are your arguments only claims from things you believe?
And no don’t come with the “look for it yourself” bs, that’s not how a argument works, YOU make a claim, YOU back it up with a sources otherwise it is staying an unproven claim.
3 Likes
Why did BVR intercept simulations by both BAe and the DRA in the 90s find the Rafael completely outmatched by the EF then?
Saying rafale’s stealth is 10x better than EF is more of a wet dream than anything imo. Both planes carry external weapons and stores anyway.
That being said, both BAE and DRA could lack data on Rafale, i don’t think any intel had been shared by DGA or Dassault to them, especially considering they are somewhat competitors.
Also the 90’s were a long time ago, and the first RBE2 PESA had somewhat of a limited range compared to RBE2 AESA. Meteor wasn’t in service, and MICA was making its first steps as well.
With all that being said, is there any scenario in which a Rafale can detect an EFT from 2x distance ? I don’t think so, unless we’re comparing a 90’s EFT to a 2020’s Rafale, and even then… i’m not so sure.
The only quote regarding Rafale is from a Dassault engieneer, mentionning a RCS the size of a sparrow. The scenario isn’t detailed though, with or without SPECTRA, clean configuration or not ?
Finally Ate Chuet, former french navy pilot, made a pretty vague statement, saying both planes were very similar agility wise, with the EFT having an advantage up high and the rafale behaving better down low, which mostly has to do with the way both engines work, apparently.
10 Likes
A fairly moderate argument… good to see.
4 Likes
I suppose i can understand why the debate can be “heated”, since those planes are very similar and very different at the same time ^^’
At the end of the day, with the limited resources we have, i don’t think one plane will be significantly advantaged compared to the other in game (at equivalent tranche/version of course)
3 Likes
what does that even mean?? we have fuel comsumption data for eft
4 Likes
Why do simulations for any kind of modern combat show discrepancies with what actually happened then?
And neither is going to properly supercruise with ordnance on the wings.
The difference is that the Rafale is legitimately much much stealthier than the EFT and won’t need to boast all these special features just to get an edge over planes 20 years older than it.
As an example, the Gripen even while afterburning has a reduced top speed of only mach 1.4 when armed with a meager loadout of air to air missiles. Can’t say the Eurofighter will be supercruising at mach 1.5 the same way an F-22 or Su-57 will. Certainly won’t be doing it with any significant advantages over the Rafale which won’t need to supercruise to come within range of firing on the EFT before they ever have the ability to spot them in return.
1 Like
I want it in the game NOW like legit we have the f15.f 14 f16 j11 su 27 mig 29 why not typhoon
Two simulations found the same thing - the EF is vastly superior to the Rafale. You’ve not produced anything except conjecture to contradict this. Drawing lines in paint with the engine intakes isn’t really evidence.
Seems odd that the French were trying to make excuses for why the Rafale is “as good as the eurofighter”, if according to you it should be much better.
16 Likes
Are they similar to the ones that claimed the Tornado would be beating the MiG-29? How did that translate in-game?
Even reading your cherry picked statements from that particular source shows that the French have a point. There were assumptions being made that the Eurofighters equipment was just superior - and it is nothing more than assumptions. Looking at actual data, and comparing the two objectively is clearly going to give us a better idea of how it will do in the game.
Please remain civil. Show me some data for a Eurofighter supercruising at 1.5 mach with any ordnance loaded, and show me the fuel consumption while doing so clean. Someone claimed to have fuel consumption charts or something.
The ‘supercruising’ y’all are discussing is no better than what the F-106 could do in the 60s.
I don’t have data (and doubt anyone does for supercruise consumption) other than EADS officially stating supercruise is possible at Mach 1.3 with a full A2A load but not a fuel tank (its my prior image with a link in German)
This one shows mach 1.5 is possible for extended periods and without reheat.
This one does not specify loadout but is intended to build upon the prior EADS statement, which could mean a whole host of things, perhaps it can supercruise in the same loudout at its highest service ceiling, perhaps they are just declassifying that it is possible in the same parameters as the prior statements, or further perhaps they are simply saying its possible clean
Hopefully that helps.
3 Likes
if nothing else, i’ve learnt Birds have distinguishably different RCS depending on the type of Bird.
1 Like
Rafale can supercruise with a standard AA loadout (usually considered to be 6x AAMs) at an advertised speed of M1.4. With fuel tanks and AGMs, i don’t think it would be possible
I would be very surprised if typhoon couldn’t supercruise either. Open source usually referencing a speed of M1.5 at high altitude with no reheat (load is not specified)
8 Likes
On that note, my link mentions the EJ200 has a ‘War’ setting?
Can anyone clarify that because i’ve never seen it mentioned before (not that it surprises me).
A specific type of bird was mentioned.
Thank you, I don’t think this is quite as feasible as they say though. According to Eurofighter GmbH they have to surpass mach 1 on burner before pulling back the throttle to maintain supersonic cruising without the burner.
I would think they could still do this at a meager speed (with higher than normal fuel consumption) due to the recessed ordnance, but still not what I’d consider a true supercruise capability. What was an early ‘typical air to air loadout’?
I would not. The Rafale’s Snecma M88 has higher temp limits and a better bypass ratio for non-afterburning performance. The EJ200 relies more heavily on bypass air to produce higher thrust and keep the engine a bit cooler… but of course doesn’t get that thrust except when the burner is being used.
Likely increases temp limits and raises the power setting of the engine. A lot of fighters have these kinds of settings… for the F-15 it would be modeled as the 102% throttle setting and this is what the in-game aircraft is based on. I would recommend you gather data for whatever performance increases that offers so Gaijin models it.
The cope on you
Not a wet dream. What Gaijin is likely to do in the future is take sources of both Eurofighter and Rafale’s RCS, and then also compare the features of both planes to come to a reasonable conclusion.
Even if Eurofighter documents state an RCS of 1m^2, Gaijin will assume Rafale is quite a bit lower (clean ofc), because it has several more stealth features that are easily discernable.
As I said before, the quote is from Dassault’s VICE CEO, not an Engineer.
Dassault claims Mach 1.4 with 2 MICAs and a fuel tank.
It basically increases the temperature limit of the engine letting it produce more thrust at the expense of reduced engine life.
5 Likes
Cheers @Flame2512 @MiG_23M , i thought it would work along those lines, i was just very surprised i’ve never seen it mentioned before.
3 Likes